Still no destroyed models

[SeXyWombat 0]

wamingo - there are board games that do armor penetration/morale better than ArmA/OFP. The games I mentioned (well, 2 of them) could run on a 486-equipped computer, and actually the code for this kind of stuff can be very, very basic - and work. We actually had decals on objects, like buildings, in ArmA - there is no real reason we couldn't have them on vehicles to indicate damage. And since there are scripts available implementing these features with more or less success (without the access to the source code etc. - I'm willing to bet my head that if ArmA/OFP was open source we would have had all this stuff for ages) I would say that it's not that hard to implement from the designers point of view. Doing the actual research (armor thickness and type, penetration of various kinds of ammunition etc.) would be the time consuming part when it comes to this kind of stuff, but even if the data was flawed, the community could easily come up with new sets. Please realise that I'm not talking about simulation-level modelling, and that doing something basic, yet based on real life rather than magical hit-point mechanics is not that hard to code. It's more like "roll a dice and substract the armor value for the affected part of the vehicle to see if the penetration occured and then roll again and check the result in the damage table" as opposed to "roll a dice, substract armor value and substract the damage from the units HP". As I've said before the damage and (less so) general infantry fighting models are not THAT complicated for the purpose of a computer game like OFP or ArmA, and that current model is more of a design choice than anything else.

Not sure I'd call that a fact. Making the game easier for more casual players isn't the same as making the game more arcady.

ArmA was, before its release, also slated and feared for becoming less simulation-like, but the criticisms were pretty unfounded.

ArmA2, same thing.

I do not fear that ArmA2 is going to be more arcady than its predecessors. I fear that it's going to be as arcady as OFP and ArmA. I believe my fears are grounded in reality, since BIS is not really talking about this kind of stuff in previews. And let's be honest - hit points are arcady. Neglecting the importance of morale is very arcady. Both OFP and ArmA had these traits and ArmA2 will have them too, because modelling morale and introducing probability based on armor and weaponry values into armored combat would scare off most casual gamers, since it would make the game difficult to understand for someone without at least basic knowledge of military equipment and tactics. Prolonged firefights ending in a draw or withdrawal due to morale issues do not offer the instant gratification shooting up 10 soldiers by yourself does. Same with realistic vehicle damage - stuff does not always blow up, you do not always end up dead if your tank is KO'd - yet spectacular explosions after successful hits are exactly what most gamers are expecting.

[Commando84 0]

Imo I would prefer a damage model cause the present way is annoying when the shaders / textures doesn't show that its a blown up tank sometimes and you waste a precious AT rocket or ATGM missile on something that looks alive but is not alive..

Anybody who have played more than 1 hours of multiplayer knows what im talking about.

Imo if Bis can also make the destruction model less heavy ( less polys ) than the undamaged tank model it would be great too.

[wamingo 1]

the code for this kind of stuff can be very, very basic

Even basic things can take a lot of work, it doesn't matter what cpu is required. And BIS have clearly not been idling so it's somewhat unfair to question their intelligence by pointing out how simple something might be.

And yes it could be a design choice - I think it's more a matter of "good enough" and other priorities take over. Sounds bad perhaps, but sometimes that's just the nature of development.

introducing probability based on armor and weaponry values into armored combat would scare off most casual gamers, since it would make the game difficult to understand for someone without at least basic knowledge of military equipment and tactics

You sound certain, but I'm not so sure casual gamers would worry much about these particular systems.

Probability is a common thing in many games and I reckon most would welcome some dice rolling for the sake of variety really.

They'd much sooner be scared off the more in-your-face things that arma is all about. Like the theme, the long distances, the extreme concentration required, 1 shot 1 kill and so on. Much sooner.

If planes starts to require a certain amount of avionics knowledge just to preheat the engines, then yes. But then things have probably gone too far anyway. It's a combat simulation, not a flight sim.

Similarly we don't really want to care about transmission while driving a car. Certain things are just out of the scope of the game. Take it for what it is.

[SeXyWombat 0]

You sound certain, but I'm not so sure casual gamers would worry much about these particular systems.

Probability is a common thing in many games and I reckon most would welcome some dice rolling for the sake of variety really.

They'd much sooner be scared off the more in-your-face things that arma is all about. Like the theme, the long distances, the extreme concentration required, 1 shot 1 kill and so on. Much sooner.

Isn't the lack of visual input after hitting a target in-your-face? Isn't getting more non-resolved engagements than clear victories or defeats in-your-face? The things I mentioned all make a game more simulation-oriented and more directly inaccessible - just like the 1-shot-kills you mentioned. The thing is, that probably most faithful ArmA players want as much in-your-face stuff as they can get.

And as for the coding part and design choices - the "good enough" HP system is not good enough for me, especially since there are so many other options with warying degrees of complexity - some of them really easy to implement (and I mean "give me the attacker's ammo type in -dammaged- eventHandler and it's done" easy) and really shifting the balance of the game towards the realistic experience I'd like to get. I have a right to this opinion. I believe many ArmA fans would gladly welcome more realism in the next game, especially if it could be easily achieved (and please consider the fact that everything would be an improvement over this battlefield-like vehicular combat). You used the phrase "combat sim", and many people believe that ArmA would like to be exactly that - but please tell me, is the exact same damage model as the one used in games like C&C fitting for a combat sim? I understand that business is business, but a part of this business is the simple fact that different customers want different features and ArmA isn't aimed at the same market as, say, CoD4. Keeping things like hit points in seems to be at least a little schisophrenic - it's not going to please realism buffs, while the game by its nature is not going for the mass audience. So perhaps we should shift our attitudes from "supportive-no-matter-what" to constructive criticism. After all, wouldn't you like to see a better implementation of armored combat in ArmA2, or ArmA3 if that's not possible? Don't ArmA players jump mods like ECP and SLX to get the realism enhancements vanilla version does not offer?

[4 IN 1 0]

Imo I would prefer a damage model cause the present way is annoying when the shaders / textures doesn't show that its a blown up tank sometimes and you waste a precious AT rocket or ATGM missile on something that looks alive but is not alive..  

Anybody who have played more than 1 hours of multiplayer knows what im talking about.

Imo if Bis can also make the destruction model less heavy ( less polys ) than the undamaged tank model it would be great too.

thats a MP bugs and also sometime appears on SP gaming

switching model might or might not fix the problem as its something due with netcode

[Maddmatt 1]

Imo I would prefer a damage model cause the present way is annoying when the shaders / textures doesn't show that its a blown up tank sometimes and you waste a precious AT rocket or ATGM missile on something that looks alive but is not alive..  

Anybody who have played more than 1 hours of multiplayer knows what im talking about.

Imo if Bis can also make the destruction model less heavy ( less polys ) than the undamaged tank model it would be great too.

thats a MP bugs and also sometime appears on SP gaming

switching model might or might not fix the problem as its something due with netcode

That's got nothing to do with MP or netcode AFAIK. Just your PC being unable to load the damage textures fast enough.

Quote[/b] ]Anybody who have played more than 1 hours of multiplayer knows what im talking about.

Not people who have high spec PC's or low enough graphics settings which make them able to load the textures fast enough.

I guess the real problem is that the game loads the normal textures first and then applies the damage textures. It's not a problem for everyone. It was only really a problem for me on older versions of ArmA and when I had my graphics settings higher (mainly texture detail).

[Kirq 0]

No mod is good as the things BIS is making

No Community Addon is good as BIS' ones and no dragging animation/sound is that good as the developers made.

I'am tiered of the "Community made this and that";

100% of the soldier models are based on the BIS Standart ones;

70% of the soundmods took sounds from youtube or other games;

BIS is making them from scratch and they sound bomb in ArmA2.

70% of the Weapons packs for ArmA are imported from games like CS or CoD4. Guys like Vilas who is making his good models from scratch are not that good as the BIS Models.

Community is nothing without BIS.

I agree that community moders are nothing without BIS and I disagree that everything that BIS made is better than moders made, sounds and effects are good examples. Most of sound mods available on this forums are way better than original ArmA 1 sounds which are one of the worst sounds I have heard lately in any shoter. MadMatt's effect for ArmA makes this game way better, lets take grenade explosion for an example, its hard to even compare original poor explosion to great dusty detonation from MM mod.

You shouldnt be tiered of "community made this and that" because most of Arma players lauch game upgraded by hundreds mb of addons/mods made by community and this game wouldnt be that good without extremly tallented and dedicated community it has.

[aus_twisted 0]

I think the way OFP added black to damaged tanks etc was better, the damage textures in ArmA look like vehicles have been burnt and sitting there for 100 years.

[sandzibar 0]

The OFP engine also used to deform the model itself. You'd sometimes get a really bizarre looking wreck that looked like it had been sculpted by Pablo Picasso.. but you were able to tell from any distance whether it was operational or not

[sniper pilot 36]

The OFP engine also used to deform the model itself. You'd sometimes get a really bizarre looking wreck that looked like it had been sculpted by Pablo Picasso.. but you were able to tell from any distance whether it was operational or not  

Yeah.

IMHO that was a better system; the bodies would stay in the vehicle too. Anyone who blew up the trambant knows how cool it looked with the body mangled in the wreck.

[wamingo 1]

words

There are varying degrees of in-your-face obviously, so no, I don't agree that the things You mentioned, by comparison, is what will make a casual player go away, if at all.

Armor in arma has multiple sides, which all sustain damage individually. Clearly a slightly better system than C&C.

However, if the accompanying indicator in the upper left corner was removed, would casual players run away screaming? Unlikely.

If your tyre is supposed to be punctured, and the blackened model wasn't indication enough (the flat in ofp was cooler I admit), you'll have plenty of indication when you start driving. What more do you need? I think casual players would be more likely insulted if they were shown a red blinking light due to an imminent explosion let alone a flat tire...

It does seem that BIS is spending a lot of their time on making the game more accessible to casual players through rearranging the UI, and even more time on getting the graphics up to par, and undoubtedly more than most realism buffs care for... But that wasn't your argument.

Realism buffs, myself included (to an extent), would of course prefer BIS spent their time on different things. But you can't deny that ArmA received improvements that ofp missed sorely, nor that arma2 won't have a share too; like the AI.

IMO, ArmA2 will be the AI update many realism buffs have been clamouring for. If it works like claimed, then it could potentially turn the game upside down.

Eg. The micro-AI could make it far more dangerous, possibly forcing players into longer distances (which is good). And supposedly the turkey-shoot phenomenon we have currently could be reduced, which ought to be an obvious boost to realism.

And yes of course I want everything too. But... Let's be fair?

ArmA is not their only game any more, and possibly haven't been for some time, and frankly I don't think you fully appreciate the chain of events set in motion by professional game development when even the most simple things need to be implemented.

[xnodunitx 0]

The OFP engine also used to deform the model itself. You'd sometimes get a really bizarre looking wreck that looked like it had been sculpted by Pablo Picasso.. but you were able to tell from any distance whether it was operational or not  

Yeah.

IMHO that was a better system; the bodies would stay in the vehicle too. Anyone who blew up the trambant knows how cool it looked with the body mangled in the wreck.

You preferred mangled vehicles over a shape keeping vehicle? While you're entitled to your own opinion I'll still say your damn crazy :P.

OFP:E kind of had the same system only it didn't..err....it did the darken thing but the vehicles didn't get mangled, they stayed in one piece but still were darker.

Chances are it was just one of the things BIS didn't touch before the preview...obviously, but that doesn't mean it will be same. Although in truth I would like to see a bit more..advanced system but the same system can be pretty good too if used correctly.

Example: http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=1295

[zinc 0]

The OFP engine also used to deform the model itself. You'd sometimes get a really bizarre looking wreck that looked like it had been sculpted by Pablo Picasso.. but you were able to tell from any distance whether it was operational or not  

Those were some realistic looking wrecks in OFP, would be nice if BI implemented a damage engine similar to that, but better.

Hell, you could go around flattening cars with your tank.

Distorted models can look pretty good if done right, especially (as someone mentioned before) with mangled up bodies inside.

[Rak 0]

To be honest, I'm expecting some locational damage system in ArmA2. Where a penetration is "penetration" and not minus in hitpoints. Thus, with a visual representation of course. I'd like to see "actual" disabled tracks, penetration holes and being able to "take out" a vehicle without a nuclear explosion after the hitpoints "run out".

IMO this was the problem with ArmA. It's "pretending" to be the ultimate land combat simulator(air combat is beyond funny TBH), yet it's just too shallow in many subcategories of this aspect.

[max power 21]

I'm pretty sure you will be disappointed, Rakgitarmen.

[POTS 0]

I really like the explosion and dammage in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAK6q7YvtLw

[kavoven 4]

I really like the explosion and dammage in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAK6q7YvtLw

They're fine for me

I don't need more dmg effects...

[mattxr 9]

I really like the explosion and dammage in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAK6q7YvtLw

Thanks for linking this, looks awesome.

[Praelium 0]

I really like the explosion and dammage in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAK6q7YvtLw

Thanks for linking this, looks awesome.    

Wow, where did that video come from?

I like the new explosions, though I'm disappointed that the car still explodes from bullets. For a game that focuses on realism it's sad to see something so inane.

[POTS 0]

I really like the explosion and dammage in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAK6q7YvtLw

Thanks for linking this, looks awesome.    

Wow, where did that video come from?  

I like the new explosions, though I'm disappointed that the car still explodes from bullets. For a game that focuses on realism it's sad to see something so inane.

Well... Maybe there really big bullets! IDK lol

[GaGrin 0]

wamingo - there are board games that do armor penetration/morale better than ArmA/OFP. The games I mentioned (well, 2 of them) could run on a 486-equipped computer, and actually the code for this kind of stuff can be very, very basic - and work. We actually had decals on objects, like buildings, in ArmA - there is no real reason we couldn't have them on vehicles to indicate damage. And since there are scripts available implementing these features with more or less success (without the access to the source code etc. - I'm willing to bet my head that if ArmA/OFP was open source we would have had all this stuff for ages) I would say that it's not that hard to implement from the designers point of view. Doing the actual research (armor thickness and type, penetration of various kinds of ammunition etc.) would be the time consuming part when it comes to this kind of stuff, but even if the data was flawed, the community could easily come up with new sets. Please realise that I'm not talking about simulation-level modelling, and that doing something basic, yet based on real life rather than magical hit-point mechanics is not that hard to code. It's more like "roll a dice and substract the armor value for the affected part of the vehicle to see if the penetration occured and then roll again and check the result in the damage table" as opposed to "roll a dice, substract armor value and substract the damage from the units HP". As I've said before the damage and (less so) general infantry fighting models are not THAT complicated for the purpose of a computer game like OFP or ArmA, and that current model is more of a design choice than anything else.

Not sure I'd call that a fact. Making the game easier for more casual players isn't the same as making the game more arcady.

ArmA was, before its release, also slated and feared for becoming less simulation-like, but the criticisms were pretty unfounded.

ArmA2, same thing.

I do not fear that ArmA2 is going to be more arcady than its predecessors. I fear that it's going to be as arcady as OFP and ArmA. I believe my fears are grounded in reality, since BIS is not really talking about this kind of stuff in previews. And let's be honest - hit points are arcady. Neglecting the importance of morale is very arcady. Both OFP and ArmA had these traits and ArmA2 will have them too, because modelling morale and introducing probability based on armor and weaponry values into armored combat would scare off most casual gamers, since it would make the game difficult to understand for someone without at least basic knowledge of military equipment and tactics. Prolonged firefights ending in a draw or withdrawal due to morale issues do not offer the instant gratification shooting up 10 soldiers by yourself does. Same with realistic vehicle damage - stuff does not always blow up, you do not always end up dead if your tank is KO'd - yet spectacular explosions after successful hits are exactly what most gamers are expecting.

Gotta say I agree with this 100%. Could hardly put it better myself.

Ghost Recon (the old original) had a much more believable system than OFP or ArmA and it wasn't as complex.

Hitpoints are a hold-over from ancient systems and we really need to break away from them. Specific component damage can be as simple as "on/off" but would instantly make the range of results more gratifying.

[Flanker15 0]

Also to add more weight to this issue of arcadyness, there is evidence that OFP2 will be using a proper vehicle damage system (not hitpoints) and may model moral.

ARMA 2 could be left behind in terms of realism.

[Yoma 0]

Euhm what evidence exactly?

[max power 21]

Euhm what evidence exactly?

Codemasters developer promises. AFAIK they have yet to put their money where their mouth is on any promise but it could be good.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

I really hope the ballistics are all rebuild just to point out a couple of things that should be done IMO for A2 give destroyed models, building and props (fences, trees...etc) their own proper density...currently they are likely to be made of depleted uranium...they all can stop SABOT.